[ryao]

That does not refute the criticism about it being a "a jack of all trades master of none". The military gave it so many roles that it seems unlikely to escape that criticism.

One of its roles is Close Air Support. A quick search finds that it is inferior to its predecessor in that role:

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/air-force/2023/11/air-force-f...

[Manuel_D]

Close air support is not that significant a role against a peer adversary. The Ukraine war has shown that modern air defenses are good enough to make CAS far too dangerous. Fixed wing aircraft doing CAS averaged something like 6 sorties before being downed or irreparably damaged. And for CAS against a non-peer adversary, older generation craft are viable (F-16s are still in production, remember).

[ryao]

All other modern conflicts are asymmetric and have shown CAS to be important. The Ukrainian conflict is the only symmetric conflict in recent history, and the F-35 is no where near it.

[Manuel_D]

Sure, and in asymmetric conflicts where the enemy has no modern air defenses you can keep using F-16s (which are still in production) and save on the maintenance requirements. The F-35 can mount external stores and haul about as many bombs as the F-16 if it needs to. It's true the Ukraine conflict is the only symmetric conflict in recent history, but the military's job is to remain prepared for symmetric conflicts.

[ryao]

The F-16 is also terrible in CAS. They tried to replace the A-10 with it, but failed. The F-35 is not faring much better for that.

As for symmetric conflicts, the F-22 is far better for handling those. Its production was discontinued because the military had no need for it. Having the F-35 for a role where there is no need seems silly. It isn't even as good in that role as the existing F-22 fleet.

[Manuel_D]

The F-16 has conducted CAS just fine for decades. What made the F-16 terrible at CAS that the A-10 did so much better? I'm tempted to say loiter time, but with conformal fuel tanks and drop tanks I think the F-16 may even be beating the A-10 at that. Both can mount the same targeting pods, so their ability to engage targets on the ground are effectively identical.

The F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter. Of course it's going to be better in that specific role. But which is better at operating from aircraft carriers, the F-22 or F-35? The F-35 costs half as much as F-22, too.

[ryao]

The F-16 is not used for CAS because it would be shot down by ground arms fire when the A-10 would continue flying, and flying the F-16 high enough to avoid ground arms fire made it lousy at CAS:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-f-16s-cas-variants-fai...

The F-22 is labelled as a multirole fighter. Its ability to handle other roles is limited, and its main role is not needed. You claimed that the F-35 is good at air superiority as a way of demonstrating its value, but the F-22's discontinuation demonstrated that a fighter for that role is not needed. Consequently, the F-35 theoretical competence in air superiority is not in any way an indicator of its value.

That said, the F-35's ability to handle all roles seems limited. It tries to be able to do so many roles that all of its competencies are handicapped. That is why it has criticism as being a jack of all trades. If it were multirole in the sense that the F-22 is multirole, it would not have that criticism. :/

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

People don't understand the role of the F-35. It's the blingy first one in during the pivotal moment of gaining air superiority. Just because the F-35 exists doesn't mean we are ditching all other aircraft. Once the skies are clear you can use literally anything else for CAS. Helicopters, gunships, etc.

[fgoesbrrr]

> Once the skies are clear

The problem in Ukraine is that the ground is not clear (mobile air defense and MANPADS). So neither side is using planes for CAS.

[ryao]

The F-22 exists for gaining air superiority.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Yep. Also requires an airfield.

The F-35 can take off from an LHD (not a full-fat carrier) which means they can be anywhere. Scary for an adversary.

[valec]

Copying this comment directly from a previous discussion:

The F-35 has a much faster response time than the A-10--and, more importantly, survivability. In a contested environment, "suboptimal" CAS from an F-35 dropping precision munitions is much better than none at all (A-10 would get shot out of the sky by any near-peer before it could approach the theater). The A-10 also has high maintenance costs and a relatively low loiter time. For fighting terrorists in flipflops, something like a super-tucano does its job for a tenth of the operating cost. Fundamentally, the A-10 was not built for CAS. It was built as a last-ditch, suicide strafer of Soviet convoys during a land war in Europe. Very few were projected to survive past the first week.

[ryao]

The A-10 is designed to be able to take hits and keep flying. The F-35 is designed to avoid hits via stealth. If it is going to be close enough to the ground in a CAS role that machine guns are a threat, the F-35's stealth features are useless. How survivable is the F-35 when taking hits? I doubt it is as good as the A-10. :/

That said, unless the military plans to have people fighting on the ground without air superiority, there is no need for CAS aircraft to face interceptors or other things that would shoot them down. They only have to worry about small arms fire.

[valec]

The A-10 is not surviving a SAM or air-to-air-missile. Even a hit by a MANPAAD is a mission kill.

> How survivable is the F-35 when taking hits?

the point of the F-35 is that it is less likely to take these hits (hits which would destroy both planes) in the first place

> there is no need for CAS aircraft to face interceptors or other things that would shoot them down. They only have to worry about small arms fire.

exactly, so in a COIN scenario the super-tucano, which has a tenth of the A-10's operating cost and longer loiter time, is the better choice

[ryao]

> The A-10 is not surviving a SAM or air-to-air-missile. Even a hit by a MANPAAD is a mission kill.

This is why there are decoy flares.

Anyway, WWII-style antiair guns would easily down a F-35 in a CAS role unless it is so high that its ability to handle that is compromised. Things that shoot bullets are the real threat to CAS aircraft. Also, the F-35 has so few shots that it can only fire a fraction of the bullets that the A-10 could fire. Combine that with reduced accuracy from having to fly higher up and it is almost useless in a CAS role.

That being said, it is lousy in all of its roles. Multirole aircraft that are capable of fewer roles are far better than the F-35 in just about every role imaginable. The F-22 is an excellent example of this. :/

[valec]

> This is why there are decoy flares.

..are you serious. chaff/flare is a last-ditch countermeasure for when the missile is completely depleted of energy for final evasive maneuvers, not a first line of defense after a modern missile. against a manpaad there's a higher success rate but even then it's not 100%.

> Anyway, WWII-style antiair guns would easily down a F-35 in a CAS role unless it is so high that its ability to handle that is compromised.

are you under the impression the f-35 is going on strafing runs???

> Things that shoot bullets are the real threat to CAS aircraft. Also, the F-35 has so few shots that it can only fire a fraction of the bullets that the A-10 could fire.

...

> Combine that with reduced accuracy from having to fly higher up and it is almost useless in a CAS role.

i'm not sure how to even respond to this

[ryao]

CAS = Close Air Support, which means being close to the ground.

They did try to replace the A-10 with the F-16, but failed:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-f-16s-cas-variants-fai...

Apparently, when they get close to the ground, they can be shot down, while the A-10 keeps flying.

[ryao]

Apparently, the A-10 is designed to minimize the angles at which a MANPAAD can get a good lock:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/a-10-pilot-explains-how-the-...

And again, the flares are meant to handle them.

[jghn]

One thing to consider. Being a 5th get figher, not being specialized for a specific role could still leave it equal to, or better than, more specialized planes in previous generations.

[Angostura]

Also known as "a useful general purpose plane", perhaps?

[TrainedMonkey]

It turns out making an integrated next gen platform with non COTS technology is extremely expensive. And in some cases a next gen jack of all trades > previous gen masters.

[ryao]

Which cases are those?

[jghn]

One thing I've seen brought up in the past when air superiority roles are being discussed. If it can take out its opponents before they even know it is there, then it doesn't matter if it's better in a dogfight. And that's quite possible at the moment.

[ryao]

The opponent will know it is there the moment it fires a missile. Anyway, that is the only role where I have heard of it being superior to its predecessors. Has it ever been used in that role? It seems like the military is trying to use it for everything but that, since the role is almost never used in modern war.

The F-22 is also far better at that than the F-35. Its production was discontinued precisely because there is no need for aircraft to fill that role. :/

[aifooh7Keew6xoo]

An expensive, new jet offers vastly superior performance relative to cheap, purchased jets in the case of perpetuating the military industrial complex

[fgoesbrrr]

If you look in Ukraine it's not the "masters of one" planes proving most useful.

[ryao]

It is not the F-35 either. The F-35 is more of a jack of all trades than its multirole predecessors.

Note that the F-22 is also considered a multirole aircraft, but it really is suited for just 1 role, which is why it was discontinued, since that role was not deemed necessary in modern conflicts. The F-22 also outperforms the F-35 in that single role.

[brucethemoose2]

The F-22 can't be exported.

And it was truly exceptional when it was new. One has to wonder how the FB-22 (a bomber variant) would have fared.

[dharmab]

There are other aircraft better suited to the dedicated CAS role, such as the AH-64 and various drones.

[ryao]

Yet they keep pushing the F-35 as a platform for that role. Furthermore, CAS is just one example. Feel free to find your own.

[idontknowifican]

please complete the saying:

jack of all trades and master of none, much better than a master of one

[crazygringo]

That's an awfully new "saying" though -- somebody only came up with it in 2007:

https://english.stackexchange.com/a/508907

Whereas the "master of none" part goes back to 1732 in meaning, and 1785 in exact wording.

It's just some people recently trying to falsely invent a notion that "jack of all trades, master of none" is "really" supposed to be something positive. It's not.

[ryao]

Saying master of none precludes the possibility of it being good at anything. :/

[ryao]

A master of one is better than a master of none. 1 > 0